If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

tense relations between clauses

I happen to encounter the following sentence, and I don't understand the tense relations between the clauses.

She dropped off on the sofa and did not notice that her son had gotten home.

The main clause has two verbs: "dropped off" and "did not notice," and they are past tense.
The subordinate clause (that-clause) has a verb that is past perfect tense. (had gotten)
In the context, I think the main clause happened first and the subordinate clause happened later.
However, I have learned the past perfect refers to a time before another in the past.
How come that-clause in the sentence above has got the past perfect tense?

Re: tense relations between clauses

[QUOTE=giddyman;1194708]Hello, teachers.

The main clause has two verbs: "dropped off" and "did not notice," and they are past tense.
The subordinate clause (that-clause) has a verb that is past perfect tense. (had gotten)
In the context, I think the main clause happened first and the subordinate clause happened later.
[/QUOTE.

That's right. You've got it precisely. We use the past perfect in the subordinate clause to show that the action in the subordinate clause occurred before that in the main clauses,